jim clark wrote: > You don't say what kind of contrasts you specified (polynomial? > some other?), or what pattern of differences among the means you > were expecting. In general, contrasts are the best way to make > sense of differences among multiple means, especially when there > are clear theoretical predictions. As for reporting the results
While I agree, I would remove the "especially". Contrasts, especially the polynomial contrasts that SPSS prints out are not going to be useful in most cases unless the contrasts map onto clear (a priori) theoretical predictions. For example, it is pretty rare that a quartic or cubic contrast is readily interpretable in most contexts that I'm familiar with. In this case I think the op wants to report all significant effects that SPSS prints out and without knowing the context ... Thom . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
